Originally posted by them_apples
3: New fighters are always down rated it doesn't matter how great the performance they give.
Roy Jones Jr vs Ali: performance wise Jones is faster, never tires and has one punch KO power. Still Ali is often picked and his competition is said to be better, yet there is no way of proving this, only pure Bias.
Tyson vs Marciano : Tyson is bigger, faster, more aggressive and has sent 240 lbs opponents flying across the ring, yet the comparison is still being made between him and Marciano.
Klitchko vs Foreman : I'm not a fan of klitchko, but if I look at this realistically he hits very hard, he's huge and he's got average skills. Foreman hits hard too but he's very sloppy. People still pick Foreman even with a 30-40 lbs weight disadvantage.
Those are just a few, what does it take for people to even give later fighter's a chance? There seems to be no backing other than Bias. You can't prove that competition was better or worse, because all big name fighter's end up fighting #1 competition sooner or later.
Only looking at number's is a fools way out, in that case John L. Sullivan is better than Larry Holmes, when all you need is one look at them fighting you know who the victor would be.
Comment